Gyan,
The design team was not chartered to select a winner. It was chartered to
provide input to the WG.
AFAIKS, the WG still has the following tasks before it:
* To determine whether the all candidate solutions are compliant with
existing BCP and PS drafts (particularly RFC 4291)
* To determine whether zero, one, or more candidate solutions should be
advanced
* To determine which requirements are significant with regard to candidate
advancement
Recall that the DT did not poll operators for requirements. They documented
requirements as they understood them. Therefore, requirements may be skewed,
reflecting the composition of the design team more than the requirements of the
larger community.
Note: 5 of 7 design team members were co-authors of the CSID, GSID, or uSID
documents.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 7:51 PM
To: Darren Dukes (ddukes) <[email protected]>
Cc: SPRING WG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 SID List compression
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Dear DT,
Excellent work and many thanks to the design team to come provide the detailed
analysis of the 4 proposals and how they match up with the requirements.
>From the analysis it does sound like CSID is the choice by the DT.
SRv6 compression & MSD issue is now finally solved! Excellent news!!
Now it's just a matter of moving forward with CSID Adoption poll.
>From the analysis it does not seem there is any draft that is in close 2nd
>place or a close call.
>From the analysis draft the two drafts that are combined to create CSID -> I
>don't see it on the Spring WG Datatracker?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj2yTHP0N$>
The following mechanisms are proposed to compress the SRv6 SID list:
o CSID -
[I-D.filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-comp-sl-enc__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rjxe7S708$>]
- Describes
two new SRv6 SID flavors, a combination of SID flavors from
[I-D.filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj2yEaZI-$>]
and
[I-D.cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj_ClpaL9$>]
o CRH -
[I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.bonica-6man-comp-rtg-hdr__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj-KHFlCz$>]
- Requires two new routing
header types and a label mapping technique.
o VSID -
[I-D.decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.decraene-spring-srv6-vlsid__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj2CTgfb0$>]
- Defines a set of SID
behaviors to access smaller SIDs within the SR header.
o UIDSR -
[I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-srcompdt-spring-compression-analysis-02*ref-I-D.mirsky-6man-unified-id-sr__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj9m08qUr$>]
- Extends the SRH to carry
MPLS labels or IPv6 addresses.
Below 2 drafts are combined to create CSID??
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfils-spring-net-pgm-extension-srv6-usid-10__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj5MZ6N5p$>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cl-spring-generalized-srv6-for-cmpr-03__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj6gvuXDE$>
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:53 PM Darren Dukes (ddukes)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'll paraphrase what I said in the call...
Today the design team presented analysis of proposals to compress an SRv6 SID
list.
They spent a year building the requirements and completing the analysis, in
depth, with unanimous consensus.
The CSID proposal satisfied all the requirements to the largest degree of any
proposal.
That proposal has multiple implementations, and interoperability, noted in the
draft.
That proposal has a large set of SPRING participants working on it already.
The problem of SRv6 SID list compression is solved, CSID is ready for adoption.
I hope we can conclude this, and choose a single proposal for WG adoption.
Darren
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rj5zQiccg$>
--
[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.verizon.com/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!T1m9_LZEbJp1PWQS-L6mAGJcAAdumuRNTNGPJaeW0ztTzRRY4AXbPC5rjwQFrDmj$>
Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
M 301 502-1347
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
